David Megginson, emeritus professor of HRD at Sheffield Business School, turns to the self-regulating forum, LinkedIn, for perspectives on procrastination and how to address coaching around it I decided to write this column on procrastination and, funnily enough, found I was up against time in getting it out. So, I decided to use an alternative […]
How should we measure performance in the current climate? By potential, not results, says Paul Stokes, deputy director of the Coaching & Mentoring Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University
In the current economic climate, particularly in the UK public sector, we are hearing more and more about value for money, effectiveness and efficiency (see Van Doren et al, 20101). In short, many are feeling pressured to justify their own performance and that of those they manage.
People are concerned with how their performance is measured. As coaches, we are also concerned with performance. For some, however, its management has a different meaning. In his book, Coaching for Performance, Sir John Whitmore2 argues the manager “must think of his people in terms of their potential, not in terms of their performance”.
He goes on: “The majority of appraisal systems are flawed for this reason. People are put in performance boxes from which it is hard for them to escape either in their own eyes or their manager’s” (Whitmore, 2009, p14).
At a recent coaching and mentoring research day at Sheffield Hallam University, a group of participants examined the idea of performance management and its relationship with coaching. Our conclusion was that, when you talk about performance management, people associate this with performance measurement and a deficit model of organisations and people.
Rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate performance management with a bundle of tools and techniques such as 360-degree feedback, competency frameworks and appraisals, which are focused on dealing with under-performance and what people are not doing well. We also debated whether the label/brand of ‘performance coaching’ tapped into the same assumptions.
Glass half empty
We concluded that there was scope for this to happen. My concern is that by deliberating using the performance coaching label and working with such performance measurement tools we, as coaches, might be colluding with a glass half empty view.
As I have pointed out, this is quite different from what many coaches, like Whitmore, intend. To borrow a phrase from the organisational theorist, Tony Watson (2006)3, such coaches would argue that people are always in “a process of becoming” rather than being fixed in terms of their competencies.
I am not saying that managers or coaches should duck the idea of managing performance. But perhaps, as so often in coaching, it comes down to the questions we ask. Hence, it may be more important to ask: “What does good performance look like here?”, rather than: “What has prevented you from delivering on this?”
My work as a coach, coaching researcher and manager-coach, has led me to believe that we can often make assumptions that people understand what good performance looks like and that the challenge is one of motivation/commitment. This is one possibility.
Another is that they do not yet understand what this looks like and that they need help in understanding good performance better. This seems to be the case, particularly with my public sector coaching clients in the current climate of cuts.
Of course, a focus on good/excellent performance is embedded in process coaching models like GROW and OSKAR, with their emphasis on success and what already works well.
Nevertheless, in our efforts to work effectively with our sponsor clients, we need to be aware of the dangers of the deficit model of performance and of being drawn into perpetuating this in our approaches to coaching.
1 W Van Doren, G Bouckaert and J Halligan, Performance Management in the Public Sector, London: Routledge, 2010
2 J Whitmore, Coaching for Performance: GROWing Human Potential and Purpose – the Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership (4th ed), London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2009
3 T Watson, Organising & Managing Work, (2nd ed), London: Prentice-Hall, 2006
Coaching at Work, Volume 6, Issue 4
Are you seeking innovative ideas to improve your practice and add value? Then get creative, says Vivien Whitaker, visiting research fellow, Coaching & Mentoring Research Centre, Sheffield Business School Coaching can involve more than one-to-one dialogue. Different insights may be gained from using creative methods of working together, as well as talking. Tapping the latent […]
Could empathy, openness and common purpose be more important than a particular coaching approach, asks Geoff Alred, visiting research fellow at Sheffield Business School Irvin Yalom, the eminent existential psychotherapist, tells a good story. One concerns his failure to cook dishes as well as a teacher in a cooking class (1980). “What was it”, Yalom […]
Do hours and minutes equate to effective coaching or should sessions be ‘lean and mean’, asks David Wagstaff, visiting research associate at Sheffield Hallam University’s Coaching and Mentoring Unit How much time do you need for an effective executive coaching session? The question came up for me after a visit to my GP. I knew […]
Collaboration across the profession to educate buyers and the public about what best practice looks like and to develop a joint code of ethics and complaints procedure are your preferred ways of encouraging good practice and reducing incompetent, poor and unethical practice, according to the Poor Practice 2010 Survey. The survey was carried out among […]
Should coaches consider the intimacy created in the coaching relationship and its impact, asks Lis Merrick of the Coaching and Mentoring Research Unit at Sheffield Business School The concept of intimacy is so often tainted with sexual overtones that the coaching profession tends to shun discussion of it or shuffle with uncomfortableness when it is […]
Many coaching approaches are based on positivity. Just don’t let it become oppressive, says David Megginson of the Coaching and Mentoring Research Unit of Sheffield Business School Positive thinking and positive psychology need to be differentiated. Positive thinking stems from the work of Samuel Smiles1 in 19th century America and more recently of Norman Vincent […]
In recent months, a handful of large UK organisations have raised concerns about what they consider to be poor, unethical or even downright dangerous practice. But how, if at all, should they respond?
Coaching is increasingly viewed as a profession in the UK – with all the expectations that come with this. More and more people are setting themselves up as coaches. The trouble is, those who do not have adequate training, CPD or supervision are bringing the profession into disrepute.
Most are probably well-intentioned. But how can we capitalise on this good intent and raise the bar without being all ‘Big Brother’ about it, and without attracting the attentions of the government?
Or is the latter what we want? Yet if the experiences of sister helping professions regulated via the Health Professions Council (HPC) are anything to go by, this is not to be undertaken lightly. It could well turn out to be a veritable minefield.
Many burning questions have been asked:
- What exactly constitutes incompetent, poor, unethical or dangerous practice? Are we in agreement or, more likely, is there a range of subjective perceptions?
- Should we be attempting to reach agreement across the professional bodies about what we deem to be best (and otherwise) practice?
- What incompetent, unethical or poor practices have coaches or assessors encountered anyway?
- Presuming there to be no all or nothing spectrum of what’s acceptable and unacceptable, what sorts of shades of grey should we be thinking about and what are the exceptions?
- And when we do encounter less than ideal practice, what do we do about it, if anything? Should there be a range of options that come into play depending on the “severity” of behaviour or is this all too Big Brother for us?
- Should we turn to the individual professional bodies to deal with complaints, seek cross-body collaboration, or use a government body such as the HPC?
- By sticking our heads above the parapet, are we increasing the likelihood of the government stepping in and requiring coaches to be registered with the HPC?
Against such a backdrop, and to get a sense of what you, as coaching providers, think, Coaching at Work has joined forces with the Association for Coaching, the British Psychological Society’s Special Group in Coaching Psychology, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, the International Coach Federation and the Society for Coaching Psychology.
We will be sharing the results of the survey in two parts over two issues. This first part looks at what you think constitutes incompetent, poor and unethical practice, and explores the extent to which you’re encountering it.
What you say
Ninety five per cent of you think sexual intimacy with a client is “unethical” although 3 per cent of you have encountered it. Some 91 per cent of you think developing an inappropriately personal relationship with clients is unethical; 12 per cent of you have encountered it.
Some of you query how “inappropriate” is defined: “If it means becoming friends and seeing each other socially outside of the coaching, it’s perfectly acceptable so long as it doesn’t compromise the coaching”; “While I do not coach friends and family, for example, many coaches do, and I do not see this as a problem if the boundaries are clear.”
The question of whether it’s acceptable to become intimate after the coaching has finished also arises: “If the coaching relationship ceases when an intimate relationship starts, that’s not unethical.”
Ninety one per cent of you think breaking client confidentiality is unethical; 25 per cent of you have come across this. However, as many of you stressed, this is not a “black and white” issue.
One respondent says: “However occasional, people can and do disclose things that require the helping professional to take further action, otherwise they may be failing in their duty of care to their client, the general public and possibly acting outside the law.”
These would include, according to another respondent, child protection, or risk of harm to self or others.
Some 93 per cent of you think misleading people about your credentials or a professional body is unethical.
Making clients dependent on coaching was deemed to be “unethical” by 67 per cent of respondents, “poor practice” by 51 per cent and “incompetent” by 29 per cent of the 529 respondents (bearing in mind respondents could choose more than one category).
What you’ve encountered
Presented with a list of practices and behaviours, the two most commonly encountered are “leading the client” (63 per cent) and not evaluating (59 per cent). Others encountered by many of you include the coach talking for the majority of the session (50 per cent), concentrating on problems (49 per cent), not reviewing/gathering feedback from the client (49 per cent), not contracting at the outset or along the way (48 per cent), and not taking into account “the wider system” – 41 per cent of you.
Twenty-six per cent of you have encountered coaches “making the client dependent on the coach”, while 20 per cent of you have come across coaches encouraging dependency on coaching in general.
One respondent comments: “We see most of these problems in coach assessment centres, and these are mainly accredited coaches. So the problem must be even more widespread among coaches in general!”
There were many other practices and behaviours you put forward, including not being aware of or managing boundaries well, the coach bringing their own issues or agenda to the coaching, and a lack of self-knowledge and awareness in the coach.
One respondent says that occasionally, they have “come across coaching that is quite dangerous, simply because the coach was working beyond their competence or because they were un-usefully attracted to the notion of helping the distressed”.
One thorny issue is whether it is acceptable to practise therapy while wearing a coach’s hat. A number of you query how we define therapy in this survey. Some 61 per cent deem practising it “unethical”, 49 per cent “poor practice”, 12 per cent “incompetent” and 9 per cent “acceptable” (respondents choosing more than one category).
Many of you felt this was a fuzzy area and one which depended on what contracting took place, on whether the coach switched back and forth between coaching and therapy, on the specific circumstances, on the definition of therapy, and so on.
A number of you believe that as long as the “hat-change” is made obvious, with clear contracting and client permission, the practice of therapy is not unethical.
One respondent argues that it is good ethical practice if a coach/therapist, with permission, breaks the coaching relationship for a while so that therapy can be undertaken. Assuming, of course, that it is agreed by the client and all appropriate discussions around the change of relationship have happened.
“It is unethical and poor practice if the coach just flip-flops between the two without mutual agreement between coach and client.”
Another says: “As a qualified counsellor and coach, I do not believe there is as much difference between coaching and therapy as some would like to make out. Coaching is therapeutic. Many counselling approaches emphasise solutions/goal setting and the client as expert.”
This respondent says that whether some of the situations listed are poor practice/unethical or not depends on the coach’s levels of competence, skill and expertise both within and outside coaching and on what has been contracted (both upfront and ongoing) with the client and sponsor.
Another says: “If a therapist is coaching, and she and the client agree that she can sometimes take off her coaching hat and do therapy, I do not see an issue of ethics or incompetence.”
This same respondent gives another example: “If a client who has fought alcoholism or drug abuse in the past now wants to work with a coach, I do not see a problem, as long as the coach recommends a therapist or other intervention when appropriate.”
Neither do they and a number of other respondents see it a problem if a coach switches to some consultancy, as long as they make the hat-change clear.
Neither is it clear-cut when it comes to working in areas or with clients traditionally associated with therapy. Twenty two per cent had come across coaches working with someone who is mentally unwell, while 18 per cent had encountered coaches working with “deep-rooted psychological issues” such as sexual abuse. And many of you defend the right to do so. Many others comment that it very much depends on the circumstances, a point made about other issues under the spotlight in the survey.
- In the next issue of Coaching at Work, we will look at what, if anything, you think should be done about incompetent, poor and unethical practice.
The Poor Practice 2010 survey
Some 529 coaches responded to the Poor Practice 2010 survey carried out between April and June 2010.
Many of you welcomed its timeliness and the collaboration between Coaching at Work and the professional bodies. Some of you feared a pre-agenda – pushing the case for government regulation or more power for professional bodies, for example. However, the survey was initiated by Coaching at Work.
Others of you would have liked a debate beforehand about some of the definitions used including “unacceptable”, “therapy”, “inappropriate”. A few of you suggested carrying out another survey on best coaching practices.
Many of you felt that there are no clear-cut situations, that it is hard to categorically say a behaviour or practice is unethical as it would depend very much on the circumstances.
You’ve also encountered coaches:
- Misrepresenting professional bodies or one’s credentials
- Acting as consultant within coaching
- Not understanding tripartite contracting
- Not understanding conflicts of interest and what to do about them
- Lacking awareness of boundaries and how to manage and hold them appropriately
- Lacking self knowledge and awareness
- Practising despite needing therapy
- Making grandiose claims for coaching
- Offering poor advice
- Bullying or harassing clients
- Dominating conversations with own issues
- Coaching children without criminal record checks or appropriate training
- Seeking referrals when client is vulnerable or during “halo effect” of coaching
- Not advising client to get appropriate professional support
- Not keeping client files according to Data Protection Act guidelines
- Coaching despite insufficient training
- Using “wishy-washy psychobabble approaches” they’ve made up
- Frequently referring to own examples
- Dismissing client issues (depression), advising them to get anti-depressants while working on coaching
- Using “high pressure sales tactics to get client to commit to 12-18 month contracts upfront”
Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4
You can only answer this question if you are clear about your evaluation criteria, says Paul Stokes, deputy director of the Coaching & Mentoring Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University Coaches, buyers of coaching services and individual clients are very interested in research that supports the use of coaching. Many people, however, don’t reflect on […]
Liz Hall, Editor
T 0844 209 2157*
Kate Thomas, Advertising Director
T 01736 763548
Margaret Bradley, Administrative Support
T 08456 80 81 85*
Annie Cree, Chief Sub-editor
Ray Belletty, Art Director
Stephen Palmer, Publisher
T 08456 80 81 85*
*Calls will cost 7p per minute plus your telephone company’s access charge.
T 01202 087621
Lines are open from 9am to 5pm (GMT) Monday to Friday
Registered Office Address
Coaching at Work Limited
2 Walsworth Road,
Hitchin, SG4 9SP,